Chelsea were completely dominant for the first half hour, but Roberto Mancini’s early substitution meant the game became more even.

Mancini surprisingly named a 4-4-2 system from the start, with Izet Hajrovic on the right flank, and Wesley Sneijder tucking inside from the left.

Jose Mourinho used Willian in the centre, two direct wide options down the flanks, and a mobile central midfield zone in the absence of cup-tied Nemanja Matic.

Chelsea should have won the game in the opening half hour, but Galatasaray fought back commendably.

Galatasaray system

Galatasaray’s first-half performance was shocking, with Mancini’s system playing perfectly into the hands of Chelsea’s counter-attackers in almost every way. Chelsea had various promising moments on the break, although their attackers often made wrong decisions and failed to build up a significant advantage.

Mancini’s 4-4-2 featured two strikers and two attack-minded wide players. This asked an awful lot of Selcuk Inan and Felipe Melo in the centre of midfield, and they were often overrun by Chelsea’s midfield trio – and were unsure whether to drop deep and protect their defence, or push up and pressure Chelsea’s midfielders.

Overall Galatasaray weren’t anywhere near compact enough, and their forwards did little without the ball. Chelsea could work the ball forward easily from defence, and then their midfielders had ample time on the ball to chip easy passes over the heads of the Galatasaray centre-backs, who were located too high up the pitch.

The first half’s major feature was Galatasaray’s suicidally high defensive line, which was repeatedly breached by Fernando Torres’ runs in behind. Perhaps Mancini was attempting to replicate the tactics deployed by his former club Manchester City in their recent 2-0 FA Cup victory over Chelsea – where the City defence played high up the pitch and minimised the space between the lines, closing down the Chelsea attacking midfielders as soon as they received passes.

Torres doesn’t possess the lightning acceleration of his Liverpool days, but he enjoyed an enormous speed advantage over Galatasaray centre-backs Hakan Balta and Aurelien Chedjou. Balta was exposed repeatedly in the first half, most obviously when he was extremely fortunate to be awarded a free-kick when competing for a long ball against Torres – this wrongly denied the Spaniard one-on-one with Fernando Muslera. Balta was removed at half-time.

Muslera, meanwhile, was uncomfortable playing behind a such a high defensive line, mishitting an early clearance when sweeping to hand Willian the chance to chip from distance, then darting forward unnecessarily for Torres’ opener.

There were various examples but the most obvious, of course, was the goal. This was a particularly extreme situation because Eden Hazard and Schurrle were briefly positioned on the same flank, while Cesar Azpilicueta stormed forward to provide a crucial overlap, too – not for the first time in this game.

Galatasaray change

Galatasaray went 4-1-4-1 after Mancini's sub on 30 mins

Mancini made an error in his starting selection, but reacted quickly when he realised the situation unfolding. After half an hour he made a defensive-minded substitution and completely changed the shape of his side, with right-winger Hajrovic removed, and holding midfielder Yekta Kurtulus introduced behind Inan and Melo, with Burak Yilmaz moving to the right.

Galatasaray almost instantly improved, primarily because they were now matching Chelsea in the centre of midfield, so Inan and Melo had freedom to move higher up and close down Ramires and Frank Lampard without leaving space behind. It’s also arguable the presence of Kurtulus allowed the centre-backs to sit deeper, too.

Now, Galatasaray weren’t so exposed at the back and gradually grew into the game. Their attacking play wasn’t particularly good, partly because they’d started the match trying to play quick balls up to the front two to combine.

Now, long balls to Drogba weren’t very effective, while Wesley Sneijder played some nice passes but struggled to have a consistent impact.

Still, Galatasaray threatened from set-pieces and eventually Chedjou scored the equaliser shortly after the home side had hit the post.

Mourinho switch

Chelsea had started the second half targeting the left side of Galatasaray’s defence with long diagonal balls, but they were on the back foot – and after the equaliser, Mourinho made a defensive-minded substitution. John Obi Mikel replaced Schurrle, which initially seemed to move Ramires to the right, but then he tucked inside and Willian went right, meaning Chelsea – like Galatasaray – were now a 4-1-4-1 system.

After this change, the sides played in front of each other rather than offering penetration, and the game became extremely dull. From that 67th minute change onwards, the two sides attempted only five shots, of which one was on target. Chelsea slowed the game intelligently with some good ball retention, while Galatasaray were more attacking but didn’t have an obvious path to goal. Drobga was isolated, and eventually replaced by Umut Bulut, allowing Yilmaz to move upfront.

Late in the game Mourinho switched his front three, seemingly to get more disciplined players in wide areas. Willian was moved to the left to track Eboue and substitute Eto’o (who had replaced Torres) was right, with Hazard in a more central role, with fewer defensive responsibilities.

Conclusion

While Chelsea were content with 1-1 in the final 20 minutes, they really should have put themselves in command of the tie before half-time. Galatasaray’s amazingly high defensive line invited Chelsea to repeatedly knock simple passes in behind for Torres to chase, and Eboue’s advanced positioning allowed Chelsea to counter down his side. Judging by the positioning of Schurrle and Hazard for the goal, Mourinho had targeted the space in behind Eboue.

Galatasaray were also overrun in midfield, and while Mancini’s starting selection was a disaster, he deserves credit for admitting his mistake and making such an early tactical switch.

“Every attack we lost four players [ahead of the ball],” Mancini told Sky after the game. “This is impossible against Chelsea because they want to play on the counter-attack and we conceded the counter-attack every time. We needed another midfielder.”

Galatasaray weren’t particularly impressive for the final hour and didn’t have an obvious gameplan, but the switch probably prevented Chelsea from winning comfortably.

Great analysis… I think the media have been quite harsh on Mancini. It’s true that he has often failed in Europe or sometimes against good teams in England, but he is actually a good tactician and usually makes clever substitutions (although sometimes it’s too clever… a bit of a tinkerman perhaps), like the change in formation here. However it’s slightly disappointing to see Mourinho being content with a draw, though it’s understandable.

Messi on February 27, 2014 at 3:22 pm

Mourinho si a defensive manager, he was content with away draws even with Real Madrid. At home, he will play for 1:0. He is a sucker.

t on February 27, 2014 at 6:23 pm

I think an after thought , I would say that Mancini didn’t get his formation wrong in the beginning, it was as if Mancini purposely played 2 strikers and 2 wide players to pin Chelsea back, galatasaray anyway is the home team, bur unfortunately they weren’t able to combine well therefore when they lost the ball it was obvious the advantage was with Chelsea counter attacking and thus gala would have issues dealing with that. Seeing how things were unfolding I guess then Mancini made the change to match Chelsea in the midfield. I think Mancini is way smarter just that the game plan didn’t go according to,plan therefore he was intelligent enough to make changes immediately. As for maurinho his tactics are predictable and boring , there’s really not much to say, he wasn’t looking to win the game with those defensive changes..he just content with a draw here and hopes to beat gala at home. Looking forward for Mancini to bring the game to Chelsea .. Anyway pls remember the underdog is gala not Chelsea, so mancini dies have a harder time to beat these rich boys.

I know you say it was an afterthought,but you clearly did not think about what you just wrote. Your analysis and assumptions on Mancini playing that way are full of contradictions pal. You are giving Mancini way to much credit. The turks will always struggle against the other rich teams too like City, RM, Barca, PSG and Bayern. Be thankful Chelsea is giving your beloved Gala some hope like they had in 2012.

DanTan on February 28, 2014 at 9:10 am

eat sack u instigator, those turkeys have a chance and ur a turd

t on February 28, 2014 at 5:41 am

I didn’t understand what you said..what i was pointing out was the mancini had purposely set out his formation in such a way to force chelsea back into its own half. because gala was the home team they would be expected to take command and pin chelsea back. i didn’t understand what contradictions are you talking about. if mancini’s plan had worked, gala would be in advantage isolating torres upfront while the whole chelsea would be back “parking the bus”. i am not giving mancini credit but at least he deserves credit for plotting a way to play against a richer and stronger team. and i am not sure if you were giving maurinho any credit because he didn’t do much like any other games, with the quality he has on his side, he should bring the game to the opponent instead of cowering – so frankly zero credits to maurinho.. what’s worst is at 1-1 he decided to copy mancini’s formation – how really useless is that? genius or coward? at least teams like city, rm, barca, psg and bayern brings the game to the opponent- chelsea plays like a coward – typical maurinho style – shooting from the back as always. when ancelloti took over chelsea he transformed them into a marvellous attacking unit. when ancelloti took over real madrid they changed from backward negative style of maurinho into a dynamic attacking team this season, the way real madrid and any strong team should play. and gala is not my beloved team, and gala was not given any hope – just chelsea and maurinho didn’t have the balls to take victory for themselves.

Oh I see now you are just a troll. I don’t really read the comments on ZM as they are sometimes full of muppets, who believe they know better or are better than mourinho LMAO. With the personel he has at Chelsea or heaven forbid Madrid they believe given the circumstances they would do better.. Some people bring up some intelligent and constructive arguments and are objective at least in the comments but I’ll normally just agree or disagree with Michael’s conclusion at the end of any ZM article without diving into the comments after watching the game.

I would be glad to have mourinho at PSG even though we have Carlo. Enjoy playing FIFA 14 or Football Manager on easy mode screaming at the monitor every time you beat a mourinho coached side ROFL.